Tetenman

Tetenman v. Epstein

Good Law
1924 Cal. App. LEXIS 473·66 Cal. App. 745·226 P. 966
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 25, 1924Civ. No. 3936.California2,772 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Craig, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the interveners, against the defendants decreeing that interveners were the owners and entitled to- possession of certain lots in Orange County, and that a deed -thereof, executed by interveners, constituted- a mortgage to secure payment to Epstein of a promissory note and taxes, -aggregating $461.17.

Plaintiff instituted an action praying specific performance of a contract in the form of an option given by Epstein to plaintiff upon the property in suit on January 5, 1921. Defendant Epstein answered, denying the allegations of the complaint, and alleging that his wife was not a party to the option, and that she refused to sign a deed of conveyance, and that plaintiff had obtained such option by means of the concealment of material facts regarding the value of the property. Thereupon the Kauffmans intervened, claiming ownership of the same property, which they alleged consisted of four lots, numbered 15, 16, 17 and 18, in block 802, of the "Vista del Mar Tract.

Upon the trial the interveners, under the direction of the court, filed an amended complaint in intervention to conform to the proof, and therein alleged among other facts,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.